Ex Parte Propheter-Hinckley et al

Patent Trial and Appeal Board

May 14, 2013

11622060 (P.T.A.B. May. 14, 2013)

UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF COMMERCE
United States Patent and Trademark Office
Address: COMMISSIONER FOR PATENTS
P.O. Box 1450
Alexandria, Virginia 22313-1450
www.uspto.gov
APPLICATION NO. FILING DATE FIRST NAMED INVENTOR ATTORNEY DOCKET NO. CONFIRMATION NO.
11/622,060 01/11/2007 Tracy A. Propheter-Hinckley 67097-759PUS1;3180 2317
54549 7590 05/14/2013
CARLSON, GASKEY & OLDS/PRATT & WHITNEY
c/o CPA Global
P.O. Box 52050
Minneapolis, MN 55402
EXAMINER
ELLIS, RYAN H
ART UNIT PAPER NUMBER
3745
MAIL DATE DELIVERY MODE
05/14/2013 PAPER
Please find below and/or attached an Office communication concerning this application or proceeding.
The time period for reply, if any, is set in the attached communication.
PTOL-90A (Rev. 04/07)
UNITED STATES PATENT AND TRADEMARK OFFICE
____________________

BEFORE THE PATENT TRIAL AND APPEAL BOARD
____________________

Ex parte TRACY A. PROPHETER-HINCKLEY, YOUNG H. CHON,
and JOSEPH W. BRIDGES, JR.
____________________

Appeal 2011-000877
Application 11/622,060
Technology Center 3700
____________________

Before MURRIEL E. CRAWFORD, BIBHU R. MOHANTY, and
PHILIP J. HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judges.

HOFFMANN, Administrative Patent Judge.

DECISION ON APPEAL
Appeal 2011-000877
Application 11/622,060

2
STATEMENT OF THE CASE
Appellants appeal under 35 U.S.C. § 134 from the final rejection of
claims 1, 5-7, 9-14, and 19-26.1 We have jurisdiction under 35 U.S.C.
§ 6(b).
We AFFIRM.
The rejected claims are directed to an airfoil within a gas turbine
engine which provides increased thermal transfer (Spec. para. [0031]).
Claims 1 and 10 are the sole independent claims on appeal.
EXEMPLARY CLAIM
Independent claim 1, reproduced below, is indicative of the claims on
appeal.
1. A cooled airfoil within a gas turbine
engine comprising:
an airfoil which defines a forward cavity and
a leading edge cavity between a pressure side wall
and a suction side wall;
a rib between said pressure side wall and
said suction side wall to separate said forward
cavity and said leading edge cavity, said forward
cavity in communication with a cooling circuit
flow path;
an opening through said rib, said opening
offset within said forward cavity and said leading
edge cavity relative a longitudinal axis of said
airfoil toward said pressure side wall;

1 Our decision will refer to Appellants’ Specification (“Spec.,” filed January
11, 2007), Appeal Brief (“App. Br.,” filed June 22, 2010), and Reply Brief
(“Reply Br.,” filed September 14, 2010), as well as the Examiner’s Answer
(“Ans.,” mailed July 21, 2010).

Appeal 2011-000877
Application 11/622,060

3
a multiple of turbulators within said leading
edge cavity on said pressure side wall; and
a multiple of showerhead holes through a
leading edge of said leading edge cavity.

THE REJECTIONS
The following rejections are the subject of this appeal:
the rejection of claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
as failing to comply with the enablement requirement;
the rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Levine (US 7,195,448 B2, iss. Mar. 27, 2007) in view
of Flodman (US 6,595,748 B2, iss. Jul 22, 2003) and Demers (US 6,890,153
B2, iss. May 10, 2005);
the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over
Levine in view of Flodman and Demers, and further in view of Pazder (US
4,474,532, iss. Oct. 2, 1984);
the rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Levine in view of Flodman and Demers, and further in
view of Kercher (US 6,287,075 B1, iss. Sep. 11, 2001);
the rejection of claims 10, 11, 13, and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Levine in view of Demers, and further in view
of Kercher;
the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Levine in view of Demers and Kercher, and further in view of Pazder;
and
Appeal 2011-000877
Application 11/622,060

4
the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable
over Levine in view of Demers and Kercher, and further in view of
Flodman.
ANALYSIS
The Rejection of Claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, First Paragraph
The Examiner rejects claims 22-24 as failing to comply with the
written description requirement (Ans. 3-4). Appellants acknowledge these
claims “improperly recite a multiple of gill holes rather than a multiple of
showerhead holes[,] as recognized by the Examiner” (App. Br. 5). Thus, we
sustain the rejection of claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph.
The Rejection of Claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 21, and 22 as Unpatentable over Levine,
Flodman, and Demers
The Examiner rejects independent claim 1 as unpatentable over a
combination of Levine, Flodman, and Demers. Claim 1 includes the
limitations “a multiple of turbulators within said leading edge cavity on said
pressure side wall; and a multiple of showerhead holes through a leading
edge of said leading edge cavity.” In the rejection of the claims, the
Examiner states Levine teaches an airfoil with cooling apertures on a leading
edge, but does not teach the claimed showerhead holes or the claimed
turbulators (Ans. 5). The Examiner further states Flodman teaches the
claimed multiple showerhead holes through a leading edge, and that Demers
teaches the claimed multiple turbulators within a leading edge cavity (Ans.
5-6). Appellants do not disagree with any of these statements. However,
Appellants disagree with the Examiner’s statement
It would have been obvious . . . to modify
the leading edge cavity of Levine with the
Appeal 2011-000877
Application 11/622,060

5
showerhead holes of Flodman for the purpose of
providing more efficient film cooling of the blade
. . . . [, and] to modify the leading edge cavity of
Levine with the turbulators and gill holes as taught
by Demers for the purpose of increasing the
turbulence of the discharge air and therefore
increase performance of the cooling fluid and for
providing film cooling on the suction side of the
airfoil
(Ans. 6). Specifically, Appellants argue the teachings of Flodman and
Demers are mutually exclusive, because Flodman teaches multiple
showerhead holes through a leading edge, while Demers states from column
3, line 60 to column 4, line 2 that only holes that are not on a leading edge
are to be used. Thus, Appellants argue, combining these references would
render Demers unsatisfactory for its intended purpose because the
combination would include holes on the leading edge (App. Br. 5-7). Even
if we were to otherwise find Appellants’ line of argument persuasive,
however, Appellants’ explanation of Demers is incomplete. Demers states
in the next paragraph
In this way, the leading edge itself may be
devoid of the typical showerhead film cooling
holes typically required along the leading edge for
providing cooling thereof during operation.
Elimination of the showerhead holes along the
leading edge correspondingly increases the low
cycle fatigue capability since the stress
concentration imparted by such holes is avoided.
However, showerhead film cooling holes could be
used in other embodiments of the invention if
desired. Low cycle fatigue of such showerhead
holes would then have to be addressed to ensure a
suitable useful life of the airfoil
Appeal 2011-000877
Application 11/622,060

6
(Demers, col. 4, ll. 3-11) (emphasis added). For these reasons, inasmuch as
Demers expressly states a leading edge may include showerhead holes, we
find Appellants’ argument that modifying Demers to include such holes
would render Demers unsatisfactory for its intended purpose to be
unpersuasive. Therefore, we sustain the rejection of independent claim 1
under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over Levine in view of Flodman
and Demers.
Appellants do not submit separate arguments regarding the
patentability of claims 5, 7, 9, and 21 that depend from claim 1. We
therefore sustain the rejection of claims 5, 7, 9, and 21 under 35 U.S.C.
§103(a) as unpatentable over Levine in view of Flodman and Demers.
With respect to claim 22 that depends from independent claim 1,
Appellants argue limitations related to unclaimed showerhead holes instead
of the claimed gill holes. We therefore sustain the rejection of claim 22
under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Levine in view of Flodman
and Demers.
The Rejection of Claim 6 as Unpatentable over Levine, Flodman, Demers,
and Pazder
Appellants do not submit separate arguments regarding the
patentability of claim 6 that depends from independent claim 1. We
therefore sustain the rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Levine in view of Flodman and Demers, and further in
view of Pazder.
Appeal 2011-000877
Application 11/622,060

7
The Rejection of Claims 19 and 20 as Unpatentable over Levine, Flodman,
Demers, and Kercher
Appellants do not submit separate arguments regarding the
patentability of claims 19 and 20 that depend from independent claim 1. We
therefore sustain the rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a)
as unpatentable over Levine in view of Flodman and Demers, and further in
view of Kercher.
The Rejection of Claims 10, 11, 13, and 23-26 as Unpatentable over Levine,
Demers, and Kercher
The Examiner rejects independent claim 10 as unpatentable over a
combination of Levine, Demers, and Kercher. The preamble of claim 10
states “[a] turbine vane within a gas turbine engine comprising.” Appellants
argue the rejection is made in error because
Levine and Demers are directed to turbine
blades, while Kercher is directed to a turbine vane.
By definition, a turbine blade rotates as compared
to a rotationally stationary turbine vane. This
rotational motion results in significantly different
forces applied to the respective blades and vanes
such that the structures thereof are necessarily
different. Appellant respectfully submits that this
alone undermines the Examiner’s proposed
combination
(App. Br. 8). Assuming, arguendo, the preamble of claim 10 is limiting, the
Examiner states “It would have been further obvious . . . to modify the blade
of Levine into a vane as taught by Kercher for the purpose of using the
cooled blade as a stationary vane” (Ans. 9). The Examiner further states
Appellant argues that the references do not
teach taking a turbine blade and using it as a
turbine vane. The examiner disagrees with
Appellants’ argument because the Kercher
Appeal 2011-000877
Application 11/622,060

8
reference states that a blade can be used as a
stationary vane (col. 4, ll. 3-8)
(Ans. 14). Thus, we find the Examiner has provided evidence sufficient to
establish a prima facie case of obviousness, while Appellants have not
provided any evidence showing a turbine blade cannot be used as a turbine
vane, but instead only broadly assert the structures necessarily differ from
each other, and therefore has not sufficiently rebutted the Examiner’s
rejection. For these reasons, we are not persuaded the Examiner erred in the
rejection of claim 10, and so we sustain the rejection of claim 10 under 35
U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Levine in view of Demers and
Kercher.
Appellants do not submit separate arguments regarding the
patentability of claims 11, 13, 25, and 26 that depend from claim 10. We
therefore sustain the rejection of claims 11, 13, 25, and 26 under 35 U.S.C.
§ 103(a) as unpatentable over Levine in view of Demers and Kercher.
With respect to claims 23 and 24 that depend from independent claim
10, Appellants argue limitations related to unclaimed showerhead holes
instead of the claimed gill holes. We therefore sustain the rejection of
claims 23 and 24 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as unpatentable over Levine in
view of Demers and Kercher.
The Rejection of Claim 12 as Unpatentable over Levine, Demers, Kercher,
and Pazder
Appellants do not submit separate arguments regarding the
patentability of claim 12 that depends from independent claim 10. We
therefore sustain the rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Levine in view of Demers and Kercher, and further in
view of Pazder.
Appeal 2011-000877
Application 11/622,060

9
The Rejection of Claim 14 as Unpatentable over Levine, Demers, Kercher,
and Flodman
Appellants do not submit separate arguments regarding the
patentability of claim 14 that depends from independent claim 10. We
therefore sustain the rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. § 103(a) as
unpatentable over Levine in view of Demers and Kercher, and further in
view of Flodman.
DECISION
The rejection of claims 22-24 under 35 U.S.C. § 112, first paragraph,
is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 1, 5, 7, 9, 21, and 22 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as unpatentable over Levine, Flodman, and Demers is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claim 6 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable over
Levine, Flodman, Demers, and Pazder is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 19 and 20 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as
unpatentable over Levine, Flodman, Demers, and Kercher is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claims 10, 11, 13, and 23-26 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a)
as unpatentable over Levine, Demers, and Kercher is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claim 12 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable
over Levine, Demers, Kercher, and Pazder is AFFIRMED.
The rejection of claim 14 under 35 U.S.C. §103(a) as unpatentable
over Levine, Demers, Kercher, and Flodman is AFFIRMED.
No time period for taking any subsequent action in connection with
this appeal may be extended under 37 C.F.R. § 1.136(a). See 37 C.F.R.
§ 1.136(a)(1)(iv).

Appeal 2011-000877
Application 11/622,060

10
AFFIRMED

mls